Ext User(ChangeAgent)
09-03-2008, 12:23 PM
OK, I'm asking our readers to name a single instance where Australias last
2 environment ministers (Turnbull & Garrett) actually made a decision that
favoured the environment. Their decisions ALWAYS put an economic benefit
BEFORE protection of the environment. Usually to please some vested
interest or party donor.
Their decisions always slightly modify some criminal act of negligence to
our ecosystem. For example Turnbull simply reduced the amount of
carcinogenic dioxins Gunns could pour into Bass Straight. They can still
do the ecological crime. If I don't get any credible examples I'll start
lobbying for a name-change for Peter Garrett. He will become the 'Minister
for Environmental Degradation'.
2 environment ministers (Turnbull & Garrett) actually made a decision that
favoured the environment. Their decisions ALWAYS put an economic benefit
BEFORE protection of the environment. Usually to please some vested
interest or party donor.
Their decisions always slightly modify some criminal act of negligence to
our ecosystem. For example Turnbull simply reduced the amount of
carcinogenic dioxins Gunns could pour into Bass Straight. They can still
do the ecological crime. If I don't get any credible examples I'll start
lobbying for a name-change for Peter Garrett. He will become the 'Minister
for Environmental Degradation'.